supportpages_list_local_articles

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with the 'refresh inventory' mutation, and the description adds real value beyond them: no login/network in local mode, network in remote mode, 'preserves local content,' and inclusion of conflicts. It could still say more about what the refresh mutates.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences front-load the local-mode behavior and then the alternate mode; each sentence carries distinct information with minimal waste. The dual-branch framing is slightly dense but not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the two operating modes plus content preservation are covered. However, the undocumented workspace parameter and the specifics of what the inventory refresh changes are gaps for a tool with real state-mutating behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single 'workspace' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never referenced in the description, so the agent gets no guidance on what it scopes, that it is optional, or what happens when omitted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete verb+resource ('List current local article files') and clearly lays out two operating modes (local/signed-out vs. linked-project refresh). It is distinguishable from generic siblings like supportpages_list_articles, though the dual behavior makes the primary purpose slightly ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the condition that selects each behavior explicitly: local mode 'when signed out or in local mode' versus 'Otherwise refresh the linked project inventory.' It does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., supportpages_list_articles), so it stops short of full when-not routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.